Re: [Harp-L] Race, Gender and Blues

["Rob Paparozzi" <chromboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Boogie,

I'm Not offended at all and respect your opinion,,,,

I extracted this from the opening of your post:

 "if I were a black blues musician and I was overlooked for a festival that was chocked full of white blues artist that I am just as good or perhaps better than -- I would be "upset"


I do agree, but the question has to be if the artists is "good enough", I've run into to some very mediocre black blues artist and ofcourse they should not get the gig because they are Afro-Americans...as is the case with mediocre white blues artists

I really don't see any GOOD Black Artists being passed over especially in the international forum. In Fact I have been passed over several times in Europe and Asia and was told because there aren't any Blacks in the band. So it seems to me that they are paying attention and want to support Black artists who were the founders of this Music.

Again it's a matter of opinion, perhaps the government could step in and set up "affirmative action" for the Blues and that would solve the problem? I think not. Jazz also originates from Black Music so should we begin THAT discussion and then onto to Rock n Roll.....oy vey!

Respectfully,
Rob Paparozzi
a Poud Blues Musician

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Boogieman Peeps 
  To: Rob Paparozzi 
  Cc: Howard Herman ; harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Race, Gender and Blues


  Not to stir the pot on race regarding the blues, but............... if I were a black blues musician and I was overlooked for a festival that was chocked full of white blues artist that I am just as good or perhaps better than -- I would be "upset".  I get aggravated at the news channels giving the gigs to British figureheads to do my news, entertainment, business,etc.  I fail to understand why black artists would NOT be offended.  It's not authentic American news when you hire a foreigner to my land tell me the news in my backyard.  

  My original post was directed to the fact that hip hop and rap are taking the masses attention and therefore the black artists are attracted to the money - reducing the number of black artist in the blues -- while white blues artists and particularly female blues artists are seeming to thrive in the much smaller blues market.  It also seems to me that hip hop and rap are actually the blues of black society today.  There are plenty of black bluesmen available for hire today that know how to play the blues.  There is plenty of room in a festival at the very least. 

  Now surely I have not offended anyone by speaking freely?  It seems someone is always offended these days about something.  I'm okay with your opinion.  Mine are seldom correct anyway, but they are mine until you convince me otherwise.

  Boogie


  On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Rob Paparozzi <chromboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Thank You Howard, I couldn't agree more and nicely stated.

    all the best,
    Rob Paparozzi

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Herman" <hherman@xxxxxxxxxx>
    To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:21 PM
    Subject: [Harp-L] Race, Gender and Blues



      I have been a lurker and have been quite content to just bask in everyone's
      wisdom regarding various topics up till now. This is my first post.

      I have carefully followed the thread about the subject of Race, Gender and
      the Blues. I admit I was clearly warned by another poster, but I am one of
      those people who has had their blood pressure elevated.

      I do not now, nor have I ever cared, whether a blues performer was black,
      white, female, male or Samoan. My sole interest has always been to enjoy,
      appreciate and listen to a great performance by a great blues performer.
      Greatness was never measured by whether the performer allegedly had some
      special insight into the blues or "street cred" by reason of possessing a
      particular type of genitalia or being a part of a specific racial group.

      The article/post I am responding to is just the latest confirmation for me
      that we have now devolved into a "Balkanized" country with many and varied
      identity groups seeking various kinds of entitlement. You simply have to be
      a part of some special group for certain specific purposes and pursuits
      these days. Positions in all walks of life now have to be reserved for
      members of various racial, ethnic, sexual orientations, and gender groups.
      Sheer talent, ability, art, and reaching out and holding the audience
      spellbound is no longer enough. Is the author of the underlying article
      that created this controversy suggesting some form of affirmative action
      for blues performers?

      There used to be an old TV show called "Queen for a Day" where the person
      who told the most heart-rending, humiliating and horrifying life story to
      the studio audience was voted to be the "winner" and received valuable
      prizes. Are we now having such a contest about which person or group has
      suffered the most with regard to man's inhumanity to his fellow man (and of
      course that includes women)? I believe that you don't need any particular
      background or have to "qualify" racially or otherwise to play the blues.
      How does having ancestors a number of generations ago who suffered the
      horrible abuse of slavery make the current generation of performers in any
      way better? Does blackness or "femaleness" uniquely qualify someone to
      perform this particular kind of music? Should Charlie Musselwhite or Dennis
      Gruenling (and others too numerous to mention) be considered "less
      authentic" blues performers because they are of the Caucasian persuasion?
      I have found their live performances just as wonderful and satisfying (if
      not more so) as any others I've heard. Should one or both of them be
      disqualified from playing a gig because there is no other slot available
      for a black or female performer to play that night?

      I grew up in a neighborhood in NYC among far too many people with numbers
      tattooed on their arms. They were imprisoned under unspeakable conditions
      and had watched unarmed family and friends tortured and killed in the most
      inhumane ways imaginable. These people had "thousand yard stares" whenever
      there was any discussion (however gently it was attempted) of the Holocaust
      and their lost family members. There were over 6 million Jews who were
      slaughtered like cattle. It would be absurd for me to claim that this
      religious/ethnic experience awards me any "points", "qualifies" me in any
      way, or should somehow entitle me to a slot as a performer to play blues
      anywhere. Does having this experience mean that only thereafter I was
      entitled to credibly play the blues? Unimaginable sorrow and discrimination
      are not the exclusive province of any racial, ethnic group or gender in
      this or any other country or human endeavor. I don't see playing the blues
      as requiring payment of some sort of emotional "ante" in a poker game of
      "can you top this" played with horror stories. Heartache and sorrow are
      equal opportunity experiences.

      I am a neophyte musician. My time is better spent working on technique than
      it is reflecting on ancestral sorrows. But even if I were a far better
      musician than I currently am, I refuse to accept the premise that my
      experience gives me some entitlement or credibility with respect to
      performing the blues. I could undoubtedly argue that extermination is worse
      than slavery, and that these events I have related happened far closer in
      terms of time. However, I refuse to make such absurd comparisons and play
      that destructive game as it does not make me a better musician. The only
      qualifications I can think of for a blues performer are the quality of the
      player's musicianship, forming a solid connection with their audience, and
      how well the performer interprets blues music as an art form.

      Is being sick, sore, lame, divorced, beaten, addicted, descended from
      slaves, victimized, jailed, fighting in a war, being disabled (or fill in
      your particular life's personal tragedy) a prerequisite to play or perform
      blues? If so, we are all qualified because there is more than enough
      tragedy, death, sadness and heartache in each of our lives for us all to
      appreciate and understand the blues. I would even go so far as to say that
      maybe it does help to channel some of the pain inherent in being human into
      blues music. I just don't think any particular kind of pain or tragic
      personal experience is necessary. Notwithstanding the roots of the blues,
      it has evolved to where it does not belong to any one race or group long
      ago. I refuse to believe that you have to be a beaten down and depressed
      individual, or rendered inconsolable by a claimed lack of social justice of
      one kind or another, in order to perform/play the blues.

      My novel suggestion is to JUST LISTEN TO THE PERFORMER AND JUDGE THEM
      SOLELY ON THEIR MUSIC!!

      Howard Herman